In the case of Tower, Public Defender of Douglas County, Oregon et al. v. Glover (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public defenders cannot be sued for malpractice by their clients under Section 1983 of Title 42 in the United States Code because they do not act under color of state law when representing defendants in criminal proceedings. The plaintiffs were former clients who claimed ineffective assistance from their court-appointed attorneys and sought damages for alleged violations to their constitutional rights due to this inadequate representation. However, the court held that while public defenders are paid by and work on behalf of a governmental entity, they function as independent advocates for individual clients rather than agents or employees acting on behalf of the government's interests during legal proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Tower v. Glover, Justice O'Connor argued that public defenders should not be immune from lawsuits brought by their clients alleging constitutional violations due to inadequate representation. She contended that there was no historical or common law basis for such immunity and noted that other professionals, like doctors and lawyers in private practice, could be sued for malpractice. Furthermore, she pointed out that public defenders were already subject to disciplinary proceedings before state bar associations. Therefore, allowing them to also face lawsuits would provide another important check on their conduct and help ensure they provided competent representation to their clients.